onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:SeaTerror
SeaTerror has been arguing against the final results vote polls lately, even with the votes are clearly against what he wants personally. He insists on using the extra "u" simply based on "Hyouzou" when it was already decided to not use the extra "u" unless Oda states otherwise, and among other things. He stubbornly makes changes without first explaining, leading to editing wars, and his attitude of response is not exactly polite. It has been suggested that he is to be banned for one month. Please discuss about your opinions on how to deal with him. 07:50, August 11, 2011 (UTC) Discussion Can you go into detail regarding "among other things"? Preferably with links so people can exactly understand what you are referring to? Because he didn't edit the Hyozo page for months and there is no talkpage activiy either? 10:00, August 11, 2011 (UTC) Since Hyouzou was romanized shortly after the discussion ended, he tried to argue that all names should have the u in them with Hyouzou being the basis. He's been rude on forums, like the raws and scans one. He starts edit wars without talking about anything first. 20:35, August 11, 2011 (UTC) The trouble I would have is that I've been out of it, I don't quite like talking about memebrs I vaguely known and while you've spoken out, we've got little evidence in front of us from recent memories. From the incidents I have had with Sea, yeah there have been disagreements more so then most members but its not constant. Heck when it comes to that, I've been more of a problem recently since I popped back into existence from out of no where due to net loss. If there is a problem with Sea, we need his side of things here. One-Winged Hawk 20:46, August 11, 2011 (UTC) DP > That's not true, he did not argued that all names should have double u's, he wants macrons, and that makes sense. Here is the discussion. About rudeness, I don't recall him having been more rude recently than before, and ditto for edit wars—but I wasn't really active lastly. What are you and Yatanogarasu referring to exactly? Where is this forum even located? I only saw it because of luck. I don't see anything wrong with arguing against poll results. By that logic every single person in every single country should be arrested for arguing that their elected leader should not have been elected. Also show me where I was rude in the RAW discussion. I did argue that before and still think they should be all double u's, however I flat out said macrons should be used because it is the most neutral. SeaTerror 02:55, August 13, 2011 (UTC) The problem is, you keep insisting us to do it your way, even after polls have been passed. You keep talking about it, complaining, to the point that we cannot ignore, and not in a nice way. 04:16, August 13, 2011 (UTC) Just because you don't like a decision that's been passed by vote without discrepency doesn't mean you can argue against it. You gave your opinion in the discussion section, the poll was held, after that you can't do anything. A decision was made, even if you don't like it. A while ago you complained about Klobis moving pages without supplying reasons. By getting rid of what is potentially interesting or relevant trivia without a reason why, you're doing the same thing he was doing. Then someone undoes it, and then the edit war starts. Your latest example would be the bit of trivia on Soran's page. Decisions that get passed are finite, and unless there is something seriously wrong with the decision, like one that could affect the whole wiki, there is no reason in arguing against them because it won't accomplish anything and only makes you look like you don't care what the outcome of the vote is. 05:37, August 13, 2011 (UTC) :(Hm, I'm not sure, but it seems you mean one cannot discuss once a poll has been held. That's not true, you can never forbid people to discuss even after a vote. Especially when time has passed and new elements have appeared, like in the Hyouzou case. And if you think voted decisions are finite unless there are serious problems, it would be quite important that you discuss it here.) What I meant was he's argued against polls almost the second they're over after a decision has been passed, as if it weren't over and done and no decsision was made. He just ignores the results and presses his argument. 14:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC) "Just because you don't like a decision that's been passed by vote without discrepency doesn't mean you can argue against it." So you mean you want a totalitarian wikia instead of a democratic one. Big Brother does not belong on here. There is nothing wrong with arguing against results. The only thing that would make it wrong is if I changed everything back to the way it was after a vote passed. SeaTerror 05:57, August 14, 2011 (UTC) :Arguing is one thing, but arguing non-stop and clearly going one argument (yours) against 10 people who voted against you... The way you argue is cynical and rude. We try to be polite and accepting here. 06:51, August 14, 2011 (UTC) I just got one more thing to add now: look at SeaTerror's comment in Talk:Black Rhino FR-U IV, where he had suggested that all vehicles are to be merged into one page. He said a "small discussion" in the Talk:Vehicles, but in truth he simply placed a statement and nobody talked about it anymore. That's a sign of arrogance and rudely expecting everyone to follow what you say. 21:08, August 19, 2011 (UTC) That is how you interpetate (correct?) it. I disagree, I think he is misunderstood on many occasions. What other way is there to interpret it? He lied and said a discussion took place to try to get his way. If a discussion didn't take place, then why say that one did? A statement is not a discussion. 18:31, August 21, 2011 (UTC) No I did not lie. That was your fault for not even looking in the right place and then trying to claim I lied about it. http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Fighting_Techniques SeaTerror 21:43, August 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Hey,when does the vote end?-- Never it seems. SeaTerror 18:04, August 29, 2011 (UTC) :There should have been a date on this... Why don't we vote to just close it now? Lol. One-Winged Hawk 19:34, August 29, 2011 (UTC) HOW LONG??????????????????...can I assume the poll is closed?....-- So he got lucky. 17:23, September 1, 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't call a 9-5 poll "lucky". 17:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC) Voting POLL IS NOW CLOSED Should SeaTerror be banned for 1 month? *Yes # 20:11, August 19, 2011 (UTC) # 21:06, August 19, 2011 (UTC) # Klobis 11:21, August 20, 2011 (UTC) # Imhungry4444 09:24, August 23, 2011 (UTC) im just being an ass seaterror, its nothing personal # Ruxax 09:07, August 25, 2011 (UTC) *No # (I don't always appreciate his attitude but that's not worth a ban) # 20:47, August 19, 2011 (UTC) (There is no rule against arguing and "he is rude" is too subjective, especially without clear references, quotes etc.) # 23:06, August 19, 2011 (UTC) # I agree with Jinbe # Yountoryuu 16:53, August 21, 2011 (UTC) I think one month is too long. I say one week max. # 06:04, August 22, 2011 (UTC).//not a good idea// # One-Winged Hawk 08:56, August 23, 2011 (UTC) Rather then banning, someone should be talking to Sea and getting any matters settled. I've seen worst editors around the wikia system. # (..doesnt matter ok) #-- Part 2 Begins Due to his insulting ways and editing war on World Timeline, SeaTerror is facing another ban. Please discuss. 10:28, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Part 2 Discussion Yes, SeaTerror was a good editor, like DrunkSamurai, but as time goes, both of them start to insult others and arrogantly change things back without good reason, causing conflicts. The prime example is Timeline|action=history}} history of this page, you can see his insults above his editing war. 10:39, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Ok, first, there are always one or more parts involved in an edit war, and unless one party strictly acts against a vote/decsion made by the community, the problem can't be simply placed on one's head alone. As far as I can see it, there is no decision made on the matter, and we all know that a vote is necessary if the regulars don't agree. And ST is certainly a regular. So the topic itself can't warrant a ban if we are honest. Now to insulting other users. I browsed through the history and the revamp discussion and filtered what I think could be regarded as "insulting". ---- From the discussion: 1) You're the only one who considers them approximate. You ignore the fact that if he wanted it to be approximate he would have said the word about. Look up the word about in the dictionary. '''You might learn something in your life for once.' ''2) '''You're a retard who doesn't know what a troll is. Quit being a fucking idiot. Jesus Christ'. If Oda intended it to be approximation then he would have implied so by putting the word "about" before every date. You want to change Roger's death now too?'' From the history: Quit drinking so much and read the talk page for once. Klobis is the troll who ignores ongoing debates. ---- So, uhm...I'm usually against banning people, and especially not trusted regulars like SeaTerror..but I understand that the second comment goes a bit far. Personally, I think if Seaterror would (honestly) apologize to the users offended a ban isn't necessary. However, I was not the one insulted and I think only they can accept or decline an apology. If he doesn't, one week should be enough. 11:41, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :I added another sentence. :Ah it was already listed, sorry Jinbe... I agree with an apology from ST towards the ones he insulted, he should just with a warning this time. A troublemaker from time to time he is, but getting him banned is still a little too much. I would go with an apology and a warning, and only if he doesn't agree on some conditions, I will agree with a ban. And just to clarify, with an honest apology I don't mean showing up on the forum with a "sorry". Talk pages must be visited, preferably leaving more than one line of regret. 11:57, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Not a ban. He is a regular user, a ban would be bad. Not a good enough reason to ban him. If you warned him he would have stopped. I know its bad to talk like that in a talkpage, but if you warn him, he'll understand.. He is not a kid. I dunno what happened with DrunkSamurai, but SeaTerror only proved his point strongly.. Talk to him and he'll understand. No need to ban him, even for a week. I think a big issue is his way of handling a discussion, well I don't know if he deserve a ban for this reason, but I think is far more important that a random insult. I think it's a problem, because when he stubbornly keep his position while negating everybody's opinion and never provide some reasonable argumentations, he just stall the discussion for weeks and force the community to vote on matters that can be solved just by talking (and still complaining after the issue is solved). I off course don't expect that everybody agrees on the same thing because we can have different opinions, but when I was involved in discussions with SeaTerror I often received a "Nope, that's wrong, you have to prove it"-like answer every time I tried to argument my opinion. Here all his answers on the World Timeline talk page: Other examples are Mt. Colubo and Shirley discussions. Sincerely, after a while you fell like giving up and I start wondering if he is mocking us (obviously I hope he doesn't). In a discussion you argue your opinion and try to convince the others that you are right, but you should take in account that you may be wrong too (of course it counts for me too) and if things don't go your way get over it, I think everybody in this wiki has one or two things that don't like but the wiki agreed to do so. I don't like having a tense relationships between users, so I hope we will solve this issue soon enough. I think that this is the second time that he has been nominated for a ban, and if the first time acts as a warning (and he didn't change his ways) a ban is what we need. We need consequences for people that do something wrong, or else people will know that they can get away with it. SeaTerror is a great editor, but sometimes he is counterproductive to the interests of the wiki, as shown several times in various edit wars and talk pages. A straight ban might take off the desire to argue the way he does. 13:30, January 10, 2012 (UTC) Mermaid Princess was a recent page I had a go at Sea for. Everyone on the talk page discussed and decided for merging it with Poseidon. I made the move after it was forgotten and while I did check things were alright, I also had to improve Poseidon so it fitted in with the rest of the wikia better. A little while later to my shock the link from Poseidon to Mermiad Princes, which I had removed due to the redirect, was back on its page, I followed the link and foun Merimaid princess was restored back to its unmerged stage. Sea had undone my edit. Sea's excuse for undoing my edit was I hadn't moved all information over, however, I had checked everything related to the subject matter was on Poseidon before the merge. Still, simply undoing the entire redirectfrom Mermiad Princess to Poseidon was not helpful and Sea should have just edited and moved anything I left on Mermiad Princess when I redirected it to Poseidon. This is the most logically solution to the problem; undoing my edit just caused me to get peeved and have to repeat my edit to correct his undo. Still, as annoying as it is, its still no grounds for me to side against Sea. We can't ask all editors to be perfect or to always do the sensible thing. I've already told Sea myself I didn't like what he did and as I am concern, its a minor issue in this case and not something I've found worth either arguing with or wanting him banned over. HOWEVER, I've encountered this problem with Sea before, in that rather then just sort and discuss things with the editor or even correct the mistake, he rushes to undo the edit. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 16:47, January 10, 2012 (UTC) First one obviously no excuse. Second one you can read the edit history for that one. I snapped after he kept calling me a troll without even reading the talk page. Third one isn't as bad as it could have been but still something. I don't see how the 4th one can count as an insult, however. Also Leviathan we are allowed to bring up past discussions after about 3 months I think was decided. Maybe it was 4 or 6. Or that was just the blog edit debate for all of those months. Now obviously this isn't the place for it but I'm just saying. Also what about Shirley? SeaTerror 17:42, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :I think some of this is to do with a clash of egos and opinions, nothing more. I haven't seen Sea led a campaigne against anyone so while the insults are uncalled for and rude, I think its a little weak to call up the insults. Even then, the most its worth is a minor offence and honestly... Those insults from what I read here aren't that big of a deal. Sea isn't stringing a hundred swear words together in a line or anything. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 17:55, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :I agree with you, but is an apology really too much to ask for? 18:13, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, sorry Shirley has nothing to do in this discussion, I instinctively put it together with Colubo. I just bring it to remark that you usually don't explain yourself very much and keep denying everybody's opinion while not provide counter-argumentations. As I said I fell this aspect more a "problem" then just some random insult, since it's this behavior that leads to "harsh terms" by both parts, although I don't know if a ban can be issued for this reason. Not good reasons for a ban. If users have a problem with his behavior just tell him to not doing it or to apologize. Just Give Him A Warning And Make Him Apologize I don't care about him getting banned or not, and forced apologizes wouldn't change anything. I'd just appreciate that he learn how to debate. Levi perfectly summed up the problem. I spent a lot of time trying to explain each point using different formulations, considering each of his arguments... just to get one-liners totally ignoring any point I made, and even enjoining me to check a dictionary so I learn something for once... Seriously? That's called trolling—even if his motivations are sincere. For the wiki system to work, we're supposed to ignore this. Attention: that does not mean we're silencing him, not at all. Nothing keeps him from disproving our arguments. Nothing keeps him from opening polls to question something. But if we must open a poll before taking any decision just because one single person says "do not want!!!!11" without even discussing, that's just not possible. That's why I asked the admins to tell him to stop reverting. This wasn't a ban request; that would be useless anyway. I don't know what makes you think he's not a kid LPK, but in my opinion he totally behaves as such—and I don't think he'd understand why he's banned anyway. There's no solution, he just needs to learn to be less self-centered and closed-minded; only time can do that. I don't really have a problem with the reverting, but the thing that bugs me is the utter refusal to negotiate. There have been a few cases when it has basically been SeaTerror vs. five or more editors, even if they have decent evidence. While this is not "traditional" trolling, it is still inhibiting progress and preventing the wiki from operating smoothly. I don't know if this warrants a ban, but I think that he should at least consider reconsidering his behavior. 23:44, January 10, 2012 (UTC) This is by far not the first time this kind of thing has happened, and I'm not just talking about the first time banning him came up. @Tuckyd and LPK, if it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't something that can be solved with something as useless as a miniscule slap on the wrist like you're suggesting. It needs something a little heavier. I don't know if banning will help, but it's sure as hell worth a shot. 01:07, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Well, its only ban or no ban... Seems like this arguement is gonna lead to another vote.. I understand how Sff feels as he was the one who argued with him.. But, ban is just too much. Unless its only for 1 week.. I dunno.. And SeaTerror is not a new user, or some random troll. He is here more than a year.. Its just the same thing as the previous discussion.. I think 3 day ban is resonable Nothing's gonna change in 3 days, so no. Somehow i doubt that SeaTerror will change no matter how long of a ban we give him. 03:13, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Your Probably Right lets say (since he has 2 strikes) 3rd stike yer' out! ok Well, stubborn as he is, if he insists on editing war and even insulting people, and refuses to apologize (or apologizes and then does it again) then who agrees that is unacceptable behavior? 03:23, January 11, 2012 (UTC) :You will have to open a poll on this matter, but if he doesn't apologize (honestly) in the next 3 days, one week seems fine by me. 08:43, January 11, 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Yatanogarasu on this one. 03:44, January 11, 2012 (UTC) I agree Ok then, what is the punishment going to be? 04:08, January 11, 2012 (UTC) 1 week would do nothing to him. But let's take a vote like before. A vote on whether to ban him or not, and decide the consequences depending on the result of the poll, right? 13:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC) We should structure the poll so that a vote for the longer bans also counts for a vote for the shorter bans if the longer ban doesn't pass. Otherwise the shortest ban might lose to the no ban faction despite the ban faction having more people because people can't agree on exactly how long they want him banned. Bastian9 01:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC) Also as people have said this is based on a long history of reverting while refusing to talk to the others (with occaisional insults, I can look some of them up if anyone doubts me). He has had many warnings from Yata warning him that he might be banned if he continues to a failed banning (which only encouraged him since he basically learned that he wouldn't be punished for his behavoir). I'm for a nice long month ban, but I'm aware most people only want 3 days to a week. Bastian9 01:41, January 12, 2012 (UTC) Shall we take a vote then @One-Winged Hawk: Last time we voted you said instead of a banning, someone should talk to him and get him to change his ways. Well, he was talked to and nothing changed. I don't know if this will effect your opinion or not but I felt it needed to be said.Bastian9 01:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC) Hmm... you guys forgot to write when the vote will end... Every vote lasts 2 weeks I think. The vote "rules" are "illegal". That is not how any poll works on this site. It wasn't even started by an admin. Remember the voting rules forum? You're saying if somebody voted for 6 months then their vote would have also counted for 3 months. SeaTerror 19:11, January 12, 2012 (UTC) No, their vote would only count for three months if six months did not succeed. Think of it as they are voting for you to get banned for as long as possible but if they can't get that exact length they are willing to settle for less as long as you get banned. As for the rest of your complaints, they are quite frankly ridiculous. Admins don't have to start votes and vote structures depend on the specific matter at hand (not to mention that DancePowderer has voted and thus read and implicitly sanctioned the rules). Bastian9 00:48, January 13, 2012 (UTC) Now it is 4 days longer until the 26 not the 22 you happy? Vote Again A Vote for banning SeaTerror has opened. Note on how this vote works: If the longest ban is less than the no ban or a lesser ban vote then upon tallying it is rolled into the next highest ban. If that isn't higher than the no ban or a lesser ban vote, it is rolled into the next highest and repeat until either the current highest ban vote has the most votes of any single vote section or the no ban vote wins. Note2: If people wish a different ban length than one of the available options, they are encouraged to start a section for that ban length. You must have/be: *300 Edits *3 months here The Vote Will End on January 22, 2012 For 3 days (or less if this doesn't pass) # # # For one week (or less if this doesn't pass) # Troll King Imhungry4444 00:40, January 13, 2012 (UTC) (trust me a week off this site will go a long way for the more frequent and loyal users and editors.) # # For two weeks (or less if this doesn't pass) #Ahou King MDM Oi Need Help? 02:01, January 12, 2012 (UTC) (2 weeks are enough to prepare for a new start # For one month (or less if this doesn't pass) #Bastian9 02:03, January 12, 2012 (UTC) # 02:05, January 12, 2012 (UTC) (I don't think a short ban would solve anything.) # 02:43, January 12, 2012 (UTC) What Pacifista15 said. #Klobis 08:24, January 12, 2012 (UTC) # -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 21:26, January 12, 2012 (UTC) again starting an edit war No Ban # 01:37, January 12, 2012 (UTC) # 02:45, January 12, 2012 (UTC) # # See the top of the vote for voting rules.